Pages

Monday, February 18, 2013

Legislation
outlawing the ritualized abuse of a child has been introduced in Illinois by one Senator Don Harmon.

The
catch?

It makes a specific exemption for infant genital mutilation:

15

Sec. 12-33. Ritualized abuse of a child.

16

(a) A person commits ritualized abuse of a child when he or

17

she knowingly commits any of the following acts with, upon, or

18

in the presence of a child as part of a ceremony, rite or any

19

similar observance:

20

(1) actually or in simulation, tortures, mutilates, or

21

sacrifices any warm-blooded animal or human being;

22

(2) forces ingestion, injection or other application

23

of any narcotic, drug, hallucinogen or anaesthetic for the

24

purpose of dulling sensitivity, cognition, recollection

25

of, or resistance to any criminal activity;

...

16

(b) The provisions of this Section shall not be construed

17

to apply to:

....

21

(2) the lawful medical practice of male circumcision or

22

any ceremony related to male circumcision;

If
he has to write an exception to protect circumcision, what does it say
about the practice?

It sounds like Senator Don Harmon is aware of the fact
that this law would clearly be applicable to male infant circumcision.

In other words, not even
Keemonta Peterson would be prosecutable under the law, because it was a
"ceremony."

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

During hospital circumcisions, babies may or may not be given anesthetic to dull their sensitivity and lessen their pain. (Most are not.) Babies
are normally given a little of wine during Jewish circumcisions. Furthermore, all babies, Jewish or not, are circumcised at a time when they will be too young to remember, and cannot fight back.

Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human body is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by the patriarchy.

What is lacking in all the talk about circumcision is discussion of itsarcheological dimension - that it is the left over of human sacrifice.

Also, unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, it's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizesthe child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the UltraOrthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.

Apparently, Illinois is not alone with this oddity. There are similar laws in Idaho and California that specifically exempt medical/religious circumcision from the definition of ritual sexual abuse. See: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_law.htm